Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Tuesday RecapThe Big East Tournament kicked off with a big upset as South Florida took down Villanova. The Wildcats finished the season in absolute free-fall mode, losing five straight, which has dropped them from a 4 seed just over two weeks ago all the way down to a 9 now. It will be interesting to see what the committee does with the Wildcats, but we can see anything from an 8-11 seed come Sunday. Elsewhere in Big East action, Marquette took care of business against Providence and are now just playing for tournament seeding the rest of the way.

Three more automatic bids were handed out on Tuesday, the most important of which was Butler winning the Horizon by (finally) beating Milwaukee. We thought the Bulldogs were safe regardless, but now there's no need to debate their at-large credentials. Butler's win really had no effect on our bracket, since we already anticipated the Bulldogs winning the Horizon title. The most thrilling finish of the night happened in the Sun Belt with lowly Arkansas-Little Rock taking down North Texas in the closing seconds to earn a bid (and an almost certain appearance in one of the First Four games.) In the Summit final, Oakland stamped their ticket with a convincing win over Oral Roberts.

The final notable result of the night was Princeton's win over Penn, which sets up a de facto conference title game against Harvard on Saturday.

Wednesday PreviewThe Big XII, Pac-10, C-USA, MWC, and WAC all begin their conference tournaments today. The most important game in any of those tournaments is in the Big XII, as Colorado looks to keep its at-large hopes alive with a win over Iowa State. Missouri will be looking to avoid a Villanova-esque ending to its season as they take on Texas Tech. Baylor and Nebraska will also try to get off to strong starts and climb back into the bubble discussion with deep Big XII tourney runs.

In the Big East tournament, every game is crucial in regards to tournament seeding. A high noon showdown between Georgetown and UConn will decide which of these teams will be on the 5 line tomorrow, as both teams try to right the ship after late season slides. In other second round action, hometown favorite St. John's will continue its quest for a top 4 seed as they take on Rutgers. Cincinnati will try to solidify their spot on the 6 line with a win over USF, while the defending Big East tourney champ, West Virignia, will try to defend its title in the late game against Marquette.

Two more automatic bids will also be handed out tonight. Montana plays at Northern Colorado in the Big Sky final, and Robert Morris takes on Long Island in the Northeast final.

How do you put a team that loses its last 5 games into the tournament? 5-10 in the last 15 games! Is this a joke? I dont care who they beat earlier in the year, they just lost to South Florida in a tournament setting. If you want to dance then dont lose your last 5 games. Plain and simple.

I have to agree with Marty, no team has ever received an at-large after ending the season on a 5 game losing streak. And Nova didn't just lose, that was the biggest blown halftime lead in the history of the Big East Tournament, against what is arguably one of the worst offenses in the history of the Big East Tournament.

There are posters saying Michigan doesn't belong, Marty is pointing out that in fact they do. Argue another bubble team over them thats fine, no one is debating if Michigan deserves a 5 seed, only that they belong in the field. If you don't like it, go fly a kite bruh!!!

Might as well bring up the actual "UM" (Miami FL) if we're talking close losses too. Like the four in a row they dropped by a total of nine points. Then they'd be 10-6 in conference instead of 6-10 and they'd be a lock!

Yeah its a little cold to "fly a kite" but I'm glad we're keeping this about basketball...

I believe Michigan is being overvalued because they are hot now. They have two wins over rpi-200 teams...so I believe their overall record is inflated. Same as MSU, who has a win against a D-2 team!! I hope the NCAA looks at where these extra wins come from, not just overall record.

I hear U of M homers using the "lower bar" analogy here, but it doesn't hold up. What people are saying, in an argument against U of M, is that good wins are MUCH MORE VALUABLE than a dearth of terrible losses. I think VT, with wins over FSU, a projected 9 seed, and Duke, a projected 2 seed, are more worthy of a bid. They also have 2 less losses. Vt>Michigan.

You've talked to all 320 million? I'm defending my point, and pointing out that the argument people are using against my point is point-less. I think it'll be interesting to see whether or not an 11-loss VT gets left out for a 13-loss michigan. Or a 14-loss Marquette, if they lose today.

I'm in agreement with Michael here. VT should be nowhere near the bubble as far as I'm concerned. Ugly resume. But it is also an extremely mediocre bubble so I guess they could be last four in. We'll see.

Ok, Michael, my postulate is that all bubble teams currently projected "in" are deserving, AND VT, and that Michigan would be my last team out. Which teams that I would have in do you feel are less deserving than michigan, who has 2 wins over teams in the tourney, both of which came against a team in the last 4 out?

If Scotty Hopson doesn't go crazy for Tennessee, if Gilbert Brown didn't turn the ball over in OT at Louisville, if Ben Hansbrough missed a running jumper in the lane in the last 2 minutes, and if Dwight Hardy's last second shot bounces off the rim or the ref actually calls him out of bounds Pittsburgh would be undefeated.

ENOUGH about Michigan already. A loss is a loss. Take your 7-10 seed an be happy. Geezus

I used top 60 because Michigan has 7 wins against the top 60. I realize that people get carried away with the top 50 references but in reality there is very little difference in quality of a 50 and 60 rated team. This should have been very clear to you.

I come for the pageantry, I stay for the daily Will-Hating-Michigan meltdown.

A couple of weeks ago it was Minnesota that was the tournament team according to Will.

Last week it was UM's inevitable loss to MSU. I think Will gave it only a 6% chance Michigan could win vs MSU and the 4/5 game vs Illinois!!! I know a few people around here took those odds.

Today's team-de-jour that's better is Virginia Tech. My thought is VaTech is indeed a very comparable bubble team but you could make a strong case that Michigan's resume is stronger. Here's how:

VT Overall Record 19-10UM 18-12

Average RPI WinUM 139.0VT 165.5

Average RPI LossUM 42.1VT 64

Strength of ScheduleUM 18VTech 88

VaTech has a better overall record, but it comes up short of Michigan upon closer inspection in both average quality of wins, average quality of losses and strength of schedule all of which are an order of magnitude better in favor of the Wolverines.

VT Road Record (6-6)UM Road Record (4-5)

Now comparing their road records it appears again the edge goes to VT, until you look at where those road wins came from:

They played almost an identical game at home vs Penn St. VaTech nearly pulled off the upset against Purdue while Michigan got blown out. UM blew out the terrible team by 31 and VaTech only won by 11, not a big deal. But, UM won @Clemson in the BT-ACC challenge and VaTech just lost there last week with their bubble hopes on the line. I would argue against common opponents, Michigan objectively fared better.

So to recap, things Michigan has the edge on:Strength of ScheduleAverage Quality of WinAverage Quality of LossPerformance Against Common OpponentsBetter Road Wins

Things VaTech has the edge on:One statement win vs a top 10 team.

Conference tournaments change things, as it stands today, this is why I have UM on the 11 line and VaTech on the 12.

Will, the only people making the "elite wins uber alles" argument are you and a bunch of fans of other bubble teams who want to see their teams get in ahead of Michigan. The consensus actual bracket projections show Michigan not just in but 2-3 spots above the First Four.

Personally I think the bubble will continue to weaken today because either Colorado will lose to Iowa State again or Baylor will lose to Oklahoma again.

Nice post mistersuits!@DerekYou are mistaken. Fortunately human beings are on the selection commitee and they weigh it all out, and they have the ability to realize a 49 ranked team and a 51 ranked team are basically identical. These top 25, 50, 100, 200 designations are used as general categories to quickly evauluate teams against one another. This in no way, prevents the commitee from looking closer, in fact I know for sure that they do. Let me ask you a question, do you think a win against the 99th team should be equally valued as a win against the 51st team? Well under your rationale that would be the case, fortunately the commitee will break it down further.

Michigan should barely be in with a win over Illinois but until then they are out. There "improved" play as some call it, has been against bad teams. All their recent wins are against teams in the bottom of the league (except MSU) which just isnt impressive.

Not truly... Their argument is that 18 wins over mediocre teams is better than 1 win over an elite team, 1 win over a good team, and 17 wins over more mediocre teams. No matter what the top end of those mediocre teams is, they're still mediocre.

@Marty 'Let me ask you a question, do you think a win against the 99th team should be equally valued as a win against the 51st team?'

Simply put, yes. Both are quality wins. There is a reason for RPI and if you are in the top 50 they are elite wins. If they are 51-100 they are quality wins. RPI 48 should be valued more than RPI 53. You have to draw the line somewhere. RPI 55 should be given a quality win the same as RPI 93 should.

Something I never fully understood... What would a team's RPI look like if they had losses to say... the top 6 teams in the RPI, and wins over like 15 teams in the 100-150 range? Fantastic, right? They'd probably be in the 25 range, i'd think, even though they were terrible?

maybe VT should control their own fate and not get blown out by BC at home. Maybe they shouldn't lose at clemson. Mich has the bid over VT all day. Michigan has suffered some terrible loses (or wins in VT's case) and still been competitive in every of their last 11 games. so VT should do themselves a favor and play better basketball, like U of M has done in the second part of the season. No one wants a team in the NCAA if they are inconsistent. a duke win at home and a blow out by bc at the same place raises red flags.

BC is a tourney team. Not a bad loss. Michigan got lucky with their scheduling, in that their easiest stretch came late. That doesn't mean they're playing their best basketball. If your best isn't good enough to beat a single team that is safely in the tourney, then you aren't good enough.

Average RPI of wins/losses might be the worst stat I've ever seen. It takes some of the biases already inherent in the terribleness that is the RPI - overemphasis on the bottom of the schedule over the top - and multiplies them. There's a reason that at least the committee has the sense to mostly use T50 W/L, T100 W/L and the like. At least those provide useful information.

The RPI already makes it so a team that beats a few ~300 RPI teams is far far worse off than a team that beats a few ~200 RPI teams. Even though almost all of us would agree those games are near meaningless for evaluating at team. Average RPI takes a formula that already exaggerates the outliers and re-adds them to the point where they can overwhelm what we should be talking about - how you fare against good teams.

Isn't everyone getting a little too bent out of shape given that they're generally agreeing about where Michigan falls on the S-curve?

It seems pretty plain that, as of now, they're somewhere between a low 10-seed and a "first four" 12-seed. A neutral court win over Illinois, a projected 9-seed, should solidify them as an 11-seed (eliminating 12-seed consideration) and depending on other results, put them squarely in the running for a 10-seed.

However, a loss to Illinois, particularly if they look bad doing it, will not bode well. Sure, they may still hang on to a bid, but they will sweat as much as anyone on Sunday.

No matter how much better they've "looked" lately, it will be relevant that they failed every single time they faced an obviously at-large worthy opponent (yes, Clemson should prove to be one, and the fact that they beat the Tigers on the road will probably be their saving grace).

michigan is the youngest team in the nation, of course they weren't playing good basketball early on. the selection committee looks at consistency and overall body of work. I personally don't care if VT is in the tourney or not, but to say they are in before Mich is absurd. i hope the hokies pull it together and make a run, but if anything, they should get a bid before MSU or bama.

@dalianch Completely disagree with VT getting in over Alabama. Bama deserves it over them, especially going by your train of thought. Injured and young early on and then became an elite team in the SEC during conference play. More consistent than VT and beat better teams.

It's not the 37 best teams as of March 13th, 2011, though. That's not the way it works. You don't get extra credit for "pulling it all together" or "steadily improving". You can't use 100 stats, then try and pad your inferior stats using platitudes.

That sounds a lot like Michigan this year, except with 5 more losses and no good wins over quality teams...

@Will It sounds like your making up your own rules for this Michigan v. VT debate. Michigan has more quality wins than VT, better RPI, better SOS, and only 1 bad loss compared to VT's 3. Those are facts.

i haven't looked to much at bama's case...i just read in earlier comments that they lost to bad teams and were being "rewarded" for it. given what you said, looks like I'm going against my own argument. Appreciate the info. should learn to rely a little less on existing comments...

And also, why are people here arguing about Michigan every single day as if they're a final four team. They're a marginal bubble team. They've beaten no at large tournament teams, and only a few teams on the bubble. Their T50 wins are either questionable (Harvard) or teams that barely are in the T50, let alone the tournament (Mich St x 2). At the end of the season, they might have one T50 victory which most wouldn't consider a great win.

I root for FSU. I closet-root for Duke, because I was a humongous fan of J.J. Redick. I'm rooting for BYU right now, because I enjoy the statement they made in kicking Brandon Davies off the team. I root for Louisville, because I enjoy watching to see if Pitino's face will think it's alone and move, though it always remains still. I root for Rick Barnes at UT, because I read John Feinstein's book about the season which he spent following the ACC, when Barnes was making the tournament at Clemson. I root for Wisconsin for a reason I can't even figure out, except that I always adavance them two spots too far in my bracket. I root for Vandy, because they are a smart school. I root for Tennessee, because I loved Chris Lofton. I root for Illinois, because I still think they were the best team in the country the year they had Deron Williams, Luther Head, and Dee Brown. I root for Belmont, because they win the conference that includes the two major colleges of my hometown, Jacksonville University and UNF. I root for UCF because they beat Florida. I root for Marquette, because they seem like they don't belong, but somehow they stand in there. I root for Bucknell, because they win the Patriot league, another subject of a Feinstein novel, though when I was reading it, I hated them, because I like Lafayette more. I root for Vermont, because I can still remember how the electricity I felt watching Germain Mopa Njila and T.J. Sorrentine hit those 3's to knock off Syracuse, which I called in my bracket. I root for UNI, because... Come on. We ALL root for Ali Faroukmanesh's alma mater. I also root for all the lower seeds in the NCAA tournament, even if it's a 9 over an 8. It's more interesting if there are upsets.

The sad thing for PSU (and Michigan St too) is that if both of these teams had taken care of business vs the team projected to finish 10th out of 11... both MSU and PSU would be hard locks in the tournament.

Thanks very much mistersuit just 2 things Penn state also beat northwestern on the road another top 100 team and also at the end when you said that thing about Penn state and msu Penn state didn't lose to a bottom feeder they just only got to play indianna and Iowa once

@Brian at 11:26. Dead on. UM is probably in but a loss to Illinois would damage that greatly.

Agreeing with Will, eventually you do have to beat a big dog to claim you can run with them. UM will get their chance if they beat Illinois.

Dalianch: That is probably the scariest thing about Michigan. They didn't have a Senior Day because they don't have any. Haradaway Jr is a freshman. This team is way young and people are so hell bent on screaming about whether or not they belong that no one has stepped back to say "wow, for one of the youngest teams that was pretty darned good". Not that that should factor in the selection, but dang, the fact that they are even being discussed is amazing. And scary for opponents in a couple years...

If UM gets left out, it's not going to be a crime against humanity and if they get let in they'll be amongst a number of teams that could have been NIT bound if not for a smile from fate.

Sadly for all their close losses where they missed ft's and such, that fluke shot against Wisconsin may be the last nail.

"The sad thing for PSU (and Michigan St too) is that if both of these teams had taken care of business vs the team projected to finish 10th out of 11... both MSU and PSU would be hard locks in the tournament."

Yep. Dead on. 11th in most but even 12th in some. UM was supposed to be at home after this weekend watching. No NCAA, No NIT not even that tournament for those not good enough for the NIT.

Not a bad year for them. NCAA worthy? We'll see. They too hold their own fate Friday and Saturday. Let's see if they can do something. Sunday is going to be fun.

well said Chris in NC. and UK had the top recruiting class in the country, its no suprise they made the elite eight. UM's team is made of mostly unknown (in terms of skill) players. Yes I know there are familiar names like dumars, horford, and hardaway, but these names did not make a top notch recruiting class. dumars is a walk on and horford has seen minimal playing time. these kids were overlooked by many programs, which makes this opportunity for a young Michigan special. WONDROUS.

VT has one signature win and a Pom average win of 154.1. Of their 19 wins, 8 came from Pomeroy teams ranked 225+.

VT feasted on bad teams, much more so than Michigan.

Signature wins are nice but comparable away games against potential tourney teams, like Clemson, are probably more useful. I'd love to hear some discussion how the Duke win overshadows the Clemson comparable.

the committee wants consistent teams... vt and msu are liabilities. They will either show up and play well or leave their talent on the bus. cbs doesnt want people changing the channel due to a terrible basketball game.

VT was one-time a winner, at home, over Duke: certainly an awesome accomplishment. They were also losers of their last two, one a DRUBBING by BC at home and one a loss to Clemson on the road (a team UM took care of on the road) when their tourney life depended on it, they pooped the bed.

UM, on the other hand, took care of business in their final two games, and winning 3 of 4. They certainly didn't skid into the end of their season like VT did.

I think VT can make the tourney with 2 ACCT wins, but I think they are not as well positioned as UM is.

That's true. They do start to juniors and a soph. Those juniors are the only two on the entire team, and one of them wasn't starting early until recently. 2 juniors, two sophomores, and the rest freshman are only who receive any significant playing time. i dont know what your definition of young is, but that sounds young to me. I'm not really sure why you care, I was just thinking of the early season expectations this team had compared to where they are now. For a young team, they are in good shape...but young or old, it is an irrelevant thing to look at when talking about the tourney.

Will, in effect you're saying that a win over Duke is more important than the direct comparison of the Clemson game. Also that the average team beaten doesn't matter.

VT has two wins over locks in the NCAA tourney: Duke and FSU, both at home. Definitely good. Counting PSU as a strong bubble team, they have 3 wins over potential tourney squads. UM has 7 such wins, although none carry the lock designation, all are in strong bubble status.

In essence, you're putting 2 lock wins above 7 bubble wins and over the comparable game. I get it, I just don't agree.

My point was more that using "average" numbers aren't instructive considering most people would consider teams below 200 to be fairly equal and show us nothing about at team (unless you lose) yet have wild affects on your "average" win.

And also considering that averages themselves can be misleading. A team can beat the number 5 team, the number 40 team and the number 100 team and have the same average as a team that beat 3 ~50 ranked teams. Which one of those teams makes the tournament?

Averages are basically another way of saying SOS without providing any other context for who you beat. And I think everyone agrees that Michigan had a pretty good SOS. It's just that they lost to every team that has the potential to get better than a 12 seed in the tournament (i.e., who they'd be playing in the NCAAs).

Yes, the average win means nothing. It's one of the dumbest stats out there. VT has 1 win over an elite team, U of M has 0. VT has one additional win over a team currently looking at a single-digit seed. U of M has 0. U of M is very good at beating mediocre teams, yes. Congrats.

UM took care of a team VT couldn't, on the road and OOC, no less. VT beat no one on the road, period. All tournament games occur on the road/at neutral sites. Tech's best win on the road was Maryland. UM took down PSU, MSU, and Clemson on the road (all bubble teams).

Again, wins, at home (where it is easier to win) over two good teams beat out wins over three decent teams on the road (where it is much harder to win and where play is more indicative of what your tournament ability might be like)?

Will, you do bring up a good point about Michigan's inability to get a good win given all the opportunities. If they don't make it, that will surely haunt this team, especially since they were close many time (I know close doesn't count and a loss is a loss). We can talk all we want, but nothing will be certain until the conference tournaments are over and Sunday has arrived. best wishes to all who are rooting for their bubble teams.

The point is, not only is *someone* getting in with few quality wins A LOT OF SOMEBODIES are getting in with few quality wins. If those quality wins don't meet the great and powerful Will's definition of quality wins, then he's either an ACC homer at best, or a Michigan hater at worst.

Perhaps if he'd like to explain his double standard of why VT's embarrassing home loss to BC is OK but Michigan's win @ Clemson is irrelevant despite both being in equal standing on the bubble.

Bracketology101, I know Villanova is probably going to become the first team to ever get an at-large after ending the season on a 5 game losing streak, but at the very least the selection committee could ship 'em out to Tuscon or something can't they?

Because, as I've said 100,000 times, the most important statistic is quality wins. To me, a quality win is a win over a team solidly in the tournament. Vt has 2, U of M has 0. Prove to me, U of M, that you are able to beat tourney teams, and maybe I'll accept that you can be a tourney team. Until then, you're just very mediocre...

Two wins for Penn State will put them right in the mix and it will depend on how other bubble teams fare, particularly Michigan and Michigan State. The Nittany Lions really need to avoid being viewed as #7 in the Big Ten pecking order since whichever team is #7 will likely be left out.

If Texas makes it to the Big 12 final they would have a chance at a 2 seed.

Will, I'll agree there's some merit to your belief, but you have to consider 2 things:

1. With the expanded field, *somebody* with a weak resume is getting in, and it might as well be the team that's playing the best. You can knock Michigan's schedule and say they got lucky to play Ohio State and Purdue earlier and Northwestern and Indiana later, but they actually won. If VT didn't lose their last two after beating Duke they wouldn't be a bubble team (they'd also probably be a first round bye.) If Colorado hadn't lost to Iowa State, ESPN would be talking themselves blue in the face right now about how excited pro scouts would be to see Alec Burks and Cory Higgins in the tournament instead of asking if they'll lose to Iowa State again or can they beat K-State for the 3rd time.

2. As a Florida State fan, Will, you of all people should know that even the elite teams can have a bad shooting night in college basketball. I don't know about you, but I watched FSU, a team with a McDonalds All American PG and PF lose to Auburn on a night where Chris Singleton went like 4-12 from the ft line. Jay Bilas once said College Basketball is the only sport where offense wins championships, because the average player can't hit a wide open jump shot more than 40% of the time. If you're going to do silly things like make the case that Oklahoma State and Penn State belong in the tournament ahead of Michigan because they fell victim to a sub-30% 3pt shooter hitting a buzzer beater for the 2nd straight year, while that same Wisconsin team has been notoriously awful from 3 in almost every other road game this season, then you're not being objective about who should be in the field.

How far does Georgetown fall after getting handled by UCONN given the uncertainty of the status and/or effectiveness of Chris Wright for the Big Dance?

Interesting seeding dilemma for the committee.

Last season ND lost Harangody for some games late in the season, the committee gave ND a 6 seed (probably overseeded) then ND promptly got beat by ODU in the 1st round w/ Harangody as basically a no-show.

If you really want to compare two bubble teams' resumes, line up all their results, side by side. Put their most impressive game (obviously a win) side by side, and give a +1 to whichever one is better. Do that for every game, and see if one side comes out on top. Maybe one team's close loss to a good team is more impressive than the counterpart.

As a Kansas and Big 12 Fan, I just want to congratulate the Nebraska Cornhuskers on not making the tournament, and here's hoping they enjoy many more years of sub mediocrity in the Big 10. We already don't miss you! Enjoy the NIT!

Any comparisons of GTown this year and ND last year are way off base. Last year, without 'Gody, the Irish won, and won, and won. In fact, with Gody they were probably NIT bound, but when he went out, the Tory Jackson show started and they earned a (still probably overseeded) 6 seed. GTown has nothing to do with ND last year.

Why all the talk about Michigan? Could it be the recent and frequent ESPN reminders that after Sunday night’s Selection Show, they’ll be showing their documentary about Michigan’s Fab Five freshmen group that went to the NCAA championship games in 1992 and 1993. That’s a reminder of when Michigan basketball last was considered relevant on the national scene. Even on campus in Ann Arbor, the student section at Michigan hockey’s Yost Arena seems more enthusiastic than the Maize Rage students at UM basketball’s outdated and dingy Crisler Arena. (Michigan hockey soon will be playing in its 21st straight NCAA tournament.)

Two weeks ago, after Michigan lost by one at home to Wisconsin on a fluky buzzer beater, how many so-called “experts” had Michigan in the NCAA field? They weren’t even projected as high as a two seed in the NIT. They’ve won only two games since then, at Minnesota and at home against Michigan State by identical 70-63 scores.

Michigan’s 18-12 record* and collection of close losses against good teams (Syracuse by 3 in Atlantic City, Kansas by 7 in OT at home, Ohio State by 4 at home, Illinois by 2 on the road and that Wisconsin loss at home) may not be enough to get them in the NCAA field if they lose again to Illinois in the Big Ten Tournament. Still, that should not diminish their accomplishments, considering that in the preseason they were expected to finish no better than 8th in the conference. *Concordia win doesn’t count for NCAA tournament consideration.

For most of the season, they started two true freshmen, a redshirt freshman, a sophomore (3rd team all conference) and a junior who might be a role player on most other Big Ten teams (though always hustling Zack Novak might be a fan favorite at those schools and at places like Duke’s Cameron Indoor Stadium.) They may have less height in their regular rotation than some AAU U-19 teams. They don’t have any great outside shooters. Their bench isn’t very strong. Having the sons of Tim Hardaway, Joe Dumars and Tito Horford (brother of Al Horford) on their roster shouldn’t give UM a bid to the Big Dance. Like several of this year’s bubble teams, they have a nice NIT resumé, but still could be dancing on Selection Sunday.

Michigan loses to who they are supposed to lose to, and beats all of the bubble teams around them.

They have a win @Clemson, which is something VT and BC don't have.

They have wins against Harvard and Oakland, teams very comparable to bubble teams.

They swept Penn St, another bubble team.

They swept Michigan St, another bubble team.

Looking at the pecking order, if you are going to consider Michigan St, and Penn St, you have to consider Michigan first. They have comparable resumes, and Michigan swept both teams. Its one thing if they only played once, and Michigan won at home, and its another to take 2 from someone.

The metric you're using, Will, to keep out Michigan isnt a metric that the committee is going to use. They don't need to see Michigan beat a 4 seed to be more worthy than all of the teams they are beating on their level.

I guess I should have clarified... the point of my comparison between ND and Georgetown was overseeding by the committee. Will the committee assume Georgetown will be much better w/ Wright and overseed, even though we have no idea how effective Wright will be after the lay off.

Okay... 6/7 it is for G-Town. Wright may be back practicing, but no one has any idea how effective he'll be in a game after the lay off. Depending on who they draw in the first round, I see upset potential (at least based on the seeds).

St. Peter's has one more Top 100 win than Morehead State and they beat Alabama. Conference strength is also a pretty big factor in seeding the 13-16 lines, and the MAAC is rated 16th and the Ohio Valley is 27th. Both might end up as 14 seeds in the end, but right now St. Peter's has a slightly better resume.

Why do you consider Marquette to be safe now and just playing for seeding. If they lose to WVU, they would have 14 losses with more than likely a SOS around 30, not to mention an RPI that would probably be around 60. IMO, the only teams that should be allowed 14 losses and make the tourney would have to be a team with a SOS in the top 10, with a few rpi top 50 wins (I.e. Tennessee, and I guess Mich. St. & PSU, even though they don't have as many top 50 RPI wins).

I understand that they have a few very good conference wins (Uconn, Cuse, ND, & WVU) and no bad losses, but they had a pretty weak non conference showing (all the good teams they played, they lost to). I do think Marquette would sneak in as 1 of the last 4 in, barring alot of bid stealers, but I just do not see how they are only playing for seeding now.

I don't get why Baylor is even considered a bubble team at this point. Their profile is fairly comparable to Northwestern. They do have the two wins over A&M (NW's best win is Illinois) but the Wildcats don't have a sub RPI top 100 loss all season, while Baylor has three.

I am a Nova fan, if you remember, a month ago, I asked you what it would take for them to be a 1 seed. Man, was that dumb. So I ask you this: Why are they in the Tourney in your view? Losing 10 out of 15 including to Providence, Rutgers and South Florida(on a neutral site and tourney setting)?

That's 3 TERRIBLE losses so I can understand why ANYONE would object to them being in the dance so why do you think they should be there? And yes, I know that how a team the last 10(+) games aren't factored as much as they used to be

If I'm Rutgers coach Mike Rice, i'd not only be having a cow over the non-traveling-step-out-of-bounds-throw-ball-into-the-stands call for the last play of the game with St. John's, I'd be having a turkey, chicken, pot roast, goose, and the occasional pheasant over it. That was horrible officiating.

Yep, Rutgers got screwed. If I pretend to ignore the 2 fouls that should have been called on St. Johns, St Johns stepped out of bounds with 1.7 secs left, followed by him tossing the ball into the stands. Should have been an auto tech, plus the ball back. Not to mention, the refs immediately leave the court, with not so much as taking a glance at the monitor. Isn't this why replays were brought into basketball, to avoid horrible calls by refs in the last seconds of a game. These officials better be banned from officiating the rest of their lives...

Worst home court whistle I have EVER seen.. Rutgers got straight hosed... 1) Coburn got fouled on his drive 2)Someone def went over the book on Mitchell 3)Evans goes out of bounce with 2 seconds left 4)throwing the ball into the crowd with time left is an automatic Technical Foul. Rutgers should have had two free throws and the ball down 1 with 2 seconds left.

How come everyone in the world knows Higgins and Burr are awful officials, yet they keep getting hired. Doesn't someone have to realize the two of them and TV Ted are this bad and STOP PAYING THEM TO WEAR THE STRIPES! It's a travesty that Higgins keeps getting games, especially in the big conferences. Let them do HS Girls basketball.

Jim Burr, Tim Higgins, and Ed Hightower are the axis of evil when it comes to college basketball officiating. What's funny is that everybody thinks their conference has the worst refs because of these guys. They all ref the same conferences!

This Michigan talk is exhausting...I was curious so I just put up records vs teams in/under consideration on my blog. Michigan is 7-9, Virginia Tech (who seems to be the chosen comparison) is 3-7. One excellent win does not alone get you in the tournament (the Iowa reference worked well here). I have Michigan ahead of Virginia Tech.

Also, USC is gaining momentum, at least on my radar. I think wins against Cal and Arizona might do it if the bubble does not shrink.

Colorado, who certainly didn't need the opening game to take itself to the wire, still has a solid profile.

Wins against Texas, KSU (2x), Mizzou, and Colorado State (fellow bubble team) look good. Losses to Oklahoma and San Francisco are bad but at least both were away.

What hurts Colorado is that it has a home court hero profile, similar to Clemson (but with better wins and worse losses). They are 4-10 away from home, not exactly amazing for a tournament that occurs away from home. KSU win was the only solid away victory.

I have Colorado as a slightly better than 50/50 chance to make the tournament even with a loss to K-State. They have a solid but not great resume and you cant punish them too harshly for losing a game they are supposed to lose tomorrow.

I agree, slightly better than 50/50 with a loss. With a win over KSU they're clearly a lock. I don't see it happening, though.

I like them more than Clemson/VT due to their higher profile wins but I'd think they're more likely to tank out round one than either of those ACC squads.

If BC beats Wake tomorrow and loses to Clemson, and Colorado loses to KSU, I would put Colorado just behind BC and ahead of most of the field. BC is a better away team and I think that will help them in the eyes of the committee.

Dustin, I'm on the same page with you about BC. I think they need to beat Clemson to get in. I think they will, too, as Clemson has shown nothing away from Littlejohn and BC has shown the ability to beat teams on the road. They are also slightly schizophrenic, though, and could easily lose to Clemson by 20 if their 3s aren't falling.

Reggie is fun to watch. He might have a future in the NBA if he finds a way to get his mid-range jumper to fall more consistently. He slashes to the basket better than most in the ACC.

I don't think they lose to Wake but it's a serious possibility Clemson beats them. Clemson has Milton Jennings down in the paint and he's closer to 6'10 than 6'8 and from the games I've seen, BC has trouble with big men (see Reggie Johnson from Miami dominate them).

Bracketology 101 has been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal and on ESPN Radio affiliates across the country. The site is designed to serve as a more reliable, more accurate alternative to the Bracketology selections of other major sports websites.
Rather than predict teams based on the season ending today, or make wild predictions of the future, Bracketology 101 uses a unique "projection-prediction" method of selecting teams, giving fans a much more realistic idea of where their favorite teams stand in the eyes of the selection committee.
While other bracketologists favor conferences or teams or rely entirely on RPI rankings in making their picks, we factor in a team's resume as a whole - big wins, bad losses, in and out-of-conference wins, upcoming schedules, conference tournament sites, and each team's overall strengths and weaknesses compared to other teams on the bubble. Our "Field of 68" is updated every Monday throughout the season, with daily updates coming during Championship Week.

Join The B101 Team!

Do you want to advertise on Bracketology 101 during March Madness? Do you want to sponsor one of our upcoming daily brackets? E-mail us at bracketologyblog@yahoo.com for ad rates and details.

Follow B101 On Twitter

Bracketology 101 is now on Twitter! To follow B101 on Twitter, just click on the Twitter logo above.

How B101 Stacks Up

The numbers speak for themselves: Over the last five years, Bracketology 101 is the most accurate bracketology site on the Internet. We produced the best bracket in 2006, the second best in 2007 and 2008, and the fifth best in 2009. We are the only bracketologists to produce a Top 5 bracket four of the last five years. No other bracketologist has placed in the Top 5 more than twice. For a complete breakdown of our bracket stats from the last four years, click on the “We’re #1!” logo above.

The 40-60 Club

On top of correctly predicting 64 of the 65 tournament teams in 2008, Bracketology 101 also became the first bracketology site to ever seed 40 teams exactly and 60 teams within one seed line of their actual seed. Through 2010, we are the only bracketology site to earn this distinction.